Hot Topics:

Opinion

Hoover: Rep. Diana DeGette's misstep dominates public forum on guns

By Tim HooverThe Denver Post

Posted:
04/07/2013 12:01:00 AM MDT

Republican state Sen. Kevin Lundberg, left, Democratic U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, center, and Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, also a Republican, debate gun laws during a public forum at The Denver Post last week. (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)

Congresswoman Diana DeGette set off a firestorm last week when she came to a debate on guns armed with inaccurate information on gun magazines. Her "there won't be any more" bullets remark caused several days of furor, but the actual 90-minute discussion in which it occurred was basically civil Tuesday as more than 100 people showed up for The Denver Post editorial board's public forum, "Straight Talk on Guns."

The forum featured DeGette of Denver, fellow Democratic U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter of Golden, as well as state Sen. Kevin Lundberg of Berthoud and Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, both Republicans.

Perlmutter is a co-sponsor of a bill pending in Congress that would ban a number of assault-style weapons, while DeGette is a sponsor of federal legislation to limit gun magazines to no more than 10 rounds.

There is also legislation pending in Congress to require universal background checks on gun purchases, something President Barack Obama has strongly pushed. Here are the highlights from last week's forum:

High-capacity magazines

DeGette asserted that her bill to limit large-capacity magazines has an "excellent" chance of passing, saying the idea has "very solid" national support. But reports out of Washington have indicated the bill is a longshot.

"There's really no purpose for those things except for shooting targets or shooting people," DeGette said of the high capacity magazines.

Advertisement

One of the most bizarre moments of the forum came when DeGette was speaking about why a ban on large-capacity magazines would be effective in decreasing killing and seemed not to understand that the magazines are reloadable rather than one-time use.

"These are ammunition. They are bullets," DeGette said. "So the people who have those now, they're going to shoot them. So, if you ban them in the future, the number of the high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available."

That brought some hearty chuckles from many in the audience, and DeGette was corrected later by Lundberg.

Smith asked the Democrats that if they truly believed high-capacity gun magazines were dangerous, why not ban them all, instead of just their manufacture, and have immediate confiscation?

"To say, 'They're dangerous, you shouldn't have them, but we're not going to go after the ones that are there,' " Smith said, "I think there's a certain dishonesty to that argument."

He also asked why 15 rounds — the limit Colorado lawmakers enacted this session on gun magazines — is a "magic number," adding that no one would argue that it's OK to kill only 15 people. Smith said no law can get to the root of the problem, which is addressing violence in society.

Perlmutter agreed there were societal violence issues, but responded, "What's the difference between 15 and 30? Fifteen, OK? That's a lot of lives."

He added, "I want people to be able to defend themselves, but do they need 100 rounds? I don't think so."

Lundberg said he trusted citizens to have the ability to defend themselves. "It (limiting magazines) is not restricting the bad guy," he said. "It's limiting the ability of honest citizens who understand their responsibility to themselves, their family and their community. That's what the Second Amendment was written for."

Assault-style weapons

The U.S. Senate is expected to take up some gun bills this week, but the package does not include the assault-style weapons ban. Perlmutter, a primary co-sponsor of the measure in the House, said he did not think the bill would pass.

Lundberg said assault-style weapons bans are problematic because they often make "cosmetic" distinctions among guns. People should be allowed to possess semi-automatic weapons to defend themselves, he said.

Perlmutter responded by saying "the cosmetics are actually things that make the weapon more lethal, whether it's the pistol grips so you can spray, special forward grips, or shrouding the barrel so that you don't burn your hand so that you can get off multiple shots."

These weapons should be in limited circulation in society, he said.

"You don't need an assault weapon to defend yourself in your home," DeGette said. "I think people who are worried about banning these assault weapons are worried it will be a slippery slope and that we'll eventually ban all weapons."

DeGette said she and Perlmutter support the Second Amendment but don't think it's unlimited — an pointed out that the Supreme Court agreed in its 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller decision.

Universal background checks

Lundberg said he opposed universal background checks in part because federal background checks are so widely used today and because any checks still won't stop criminals from getting guns.

"History has shown us that countries that universally check move down that road to more and more control," he said. "And the next thing you need to keep your guns at the police station, and the next thing, they confiscate them."

That comment brought groans of skepticism from some in the audience, but the next comment elicited the same reaction from the other side.

DeGette said that in 100 years, "I am going to guarantee you that that scenario explained will not be there."

Perlmutter said background checks have stopped hundreds of sales to criminals. "That is the kind of limitation that is reasonable. This is not that hard. This is not a terrible inconvenience. It doesn't limit the Second Amendment rights that people have."

Sheriffs and enforcement

Some sheriffs, like Smith, have argued that new gun laws either can't be enforced or shouldn't be enforced. Smith said case law dictates that federal authorities can't tell local law enforcement to take an action.

Smith said law enforcement officials, including federal ones, use discretion in which laws they enforce and to what extent.

"If law enforcement gets overzealous, the courts keep us in check or the legislature changes laws out there," the sheriff said. "Sheriffs do use the best discretion they can. Their communities elect them to make the best decisions on their behalf."

But Perlmutter said the sheriff was overstepping his discretion.

"You ain't the judge, you ain't the jury, and you ain't the legislature," he said. "You aren't king of Larimer County. You are the sheriff. In your exercise of discretion, you can't start with the proposition, 'I'm not going to enforce this because I don't think the guys at the legislature did their homework.' "

Lundberg, though, defended the sheriff, saying, "Some of these things aren't enforceable, not at a reasonable practical level."

He added, "Let's make sure that not only sheriffs understand their role, but Congress does as well."

Rockies relief pitcher John Axford, who hasn't pitched for the team since last Wednesday, was forced to leave spring training camp after his 2-year-old son was bit by a rattlesnake twice in his right foot.

One-day event to run slide down University HillIt's not quite the alternative mode of transportation that Boulder's used to, but, for one day this summer, residents will be able to traverse several city blocks atop inflatable tubes.

DETROIT (AP) — In a story March 27 about a 'Little Syria' exhibit going to Ellis Island, The Associated Press, due to incorrect information from the Arab American National Museum, erroneously reported the date the exhibit will open. Full Story